When will Park51 opponents denounce anti-mosque mania?

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect is guest blogging on The Plum Line this week, while Greg Sargent is on vacation.

You'd think that opponents of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero who want to avoid accusations of Islamophobia might want to further their credibility by speaking out against the disturbing number of recent anti-Muslim incidents elsewhere in the country.

Yet Park51 opponents have been remarkably quiet about these incidents. Consider that Washington Post editorial writer Charles Krauthammer has written threecolumns on the New York mosque without mentioning any of the protests against mosques far from Ground Zero.

Why the silence? Either Park51 opponents don't care about the larger anti-Muslim backlash, or they don't want to be seen defending American Muslims in any context. Of course, the only way to sustain opposition to the Park51 project is by, on some level, holding all Muslims responsible for the acts of al-Qaeda, which is also the only rationale that supports opposing the construction of mosques anywhere in the United States. Arguing that opposition to Park51 has nothing to do with Islamophobia becomes harder once the larger anti-mosque backlash is taken into account.

There was a second incident in Murfreesboro. Gun shots reported on Sunday.

"Fire and Gunshots at Tennessee Mosque Site Called ‘Terrorism’
By ROBERT MACKEY
On Sunday, one day after a fire at the site of a planned Islamic center and mosque in the Nashville suburb of Murfreesboro, Muslim community members reported hearing gunshots as they inspected the damage.

Saleh Sbenaty, an engineering professor at Middle Tennessee State University who is on the the Islamic center’s planning committee, told The Daily News Journal of Murfreesboro that nine shots, in two volleys, were fired near the property while he and female family members looked at construction equipment burned in the fire. Mr. Sbenaty, who has lived in Tennessee for three decades, said, “It was nothing like a hunting rifle.”

We're having a candlelight vigil to support the Murfreesboro, TN mosque expansion which was vandalized over the weekend. Some of us wonder why New Gingrich hasn't planned to attend:
http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2010/08/put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-or.html

But the people pushing this story don't care. I doubt Beck cared a wit when a wackjob attempted to shoot up the Tides foundation. The only thing that saved those poor people is that the shooter was even dumber than he was crazy.

No, the goal has little to do with mosques or Islam, the goal is to inject xenophobic/nativist/racial hatred into the political debate. So when you ask "When will Park51 opponents denounce anti-mosque mania," I'd say either:

A) Shortly after the election or

B) Once one of these idjits does something so beyond the bounds that even the MSM has to cover it.

Muslims and mosques are like alien invaders in America. Similar to the "War of The Worlds" scenario. Muslims are the horrible, invaders bent on exterminating the earthlings and mosques are their very weird space ships.

The apologetic liberals who want us to like the Islamo-fanatics are gonna have a tough time selling Islam to America.

Muslims and mosques are like alien invaders in America. Similar to the "War of The Worlds" scenario. Muslims are the horrible, invaders bent on exterminating the earthlings and mosques are their very weird space ships.

The apologetic liberals who want us to like the Islamo-fanatics are gonna have a tough time selling Islam to America.

but don't forget that there was an arson case in Georgia against a mosque that turns out to have been set by one of the members. In the past CAIR has made numerous allegations that have turned out to be false

I like how he conflates "protests" in with "anti-muslim incidents." Why should anyone have to "speak out" against people lawfully protesting? Of course, some idiots are doing hateful things. During the Bush years we had nonstop idiot hate from the left side. But that issue leads to the other, more dangerous conflation in this article; he's implying an equivalence between Muslims renouncing Islamic terror and Ground Zero Mosque protesters renouncing a few acts of vandalism and ONE physical attack.

The difference unfortunately is that Muslim violence and will-to-power isn't fringe or incidental to the core scriptures and teachings of Islam. As a result, Islam can (and historically often does) function as an aggressive political movement with totalitarian designs. Try to argue that Christianity has the same sort of scriptural and church teachings that reveal a core of violence - it simply can't be done. Of course, you can argue much more successfully that Christian teachings have in centuries past been twisted to fit totalizing and violent actions. But right here, right now, Islam's own words widely and repeatedly are used to incite violence against the West. There's no need to apologize for opposing it in a rather wholesale manner, given recent experience. We've learned something about Islam FROM that experience, after all.

"Muslims and mosques are like alien invaders in America. Similar to the "War of The Worlds" scenario. Muslims are the horrible, invaders bent on exterminating the earthlings and mosques are their very weird space ships."

@battleground...I can see we're also going to have trouble selling you the U.S. Constitution as well. Wow dude you are seriously messed up...you do not behave like an American...perhaps you should find some theocracy somewhere that better suits your state of mind.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison

The right will never apologize for selling our liberties to the first group who threatens them. Pissing in their pants with fear is just part of their political strategy: I fear, You fear, we all fear, cut taxes on the rich.

@suekzoo1: "Fire and Gunshots at Tennessee Mosque Site Called ‘Terrorism’"

Oh, yay. This is not going to end well.

@BBQ: "The Taliban is using your intolerance to recruit people who will now try to kill our brothers and sisters in uniform. People who might not otherwise have done so - if not for you."

Given that there are folks out there who might be intolerant of you, if someone showed up with some evidence that folks were protesting and vandalizing your church, synagogue, or rotary meeting hall (or fine bbq-chicken establishment) and tarring all chicken, even BBQ chicken, as being battered and fried, would you think it was rational to say: "I was going to be peaceful, but because those people are bad people, I will now kill people who I think might resemble them, largely randomly!"

We could be doing exactly the opposite, and the Taliban would be using it to recruit terrorists. I'll say it again--terrorists, simply put, are not rational actors. There are lots of good reasons to not try and terrorize American citizens because of their religious beliefs (that is even in an issue in 2010: oy vey!), and not to vandalize private property and not to do drive by shootings, but because there would be less terrorists in the world if only we were better people is not one of them.

If right wing terrorists were recruiting suicide abortion clinic bombers based on stem cell research, would that be a reason to abandon the research? Or would we argue that such threats and bullying is not a reason to avoid doing something positive and good? Similarly, if something being done is bad, it should be stopped because it is morally wrong, or a bad idea, or ineffective, not because it makes Al Qaeda angry.

By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor," Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) "It's providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support."

America's enemies in Afghanistan are delighted by the vehement public opposition to the proposed "Ground Zero mosque." The backlash against the project has drawn the heaviest e-mail response ever on jihadi Web sites, Zabihullah claims -- far bigger even than France's ban on burqas earlier this year. (That was big, he recalls: "We received many e-mails asking for advice on how Muslims should react to the hijab ban, and how they can punish France.") This time the target is America itself. "We are getting even more messages of support and solidarity on the mosque issue and questions about how to fight back against this outrage."

Zabihullah also claims that the issue is such a propaganda windfall -- so tailor-made to show how "anti-Islamic" America is -- that it now heads the list of talking points in Taliban meetings with fighters, villagers, and potential recruits. "We talk about how America tortures with waterboarding, about the cruel confinement of Muslims in wire cages in Guantanamo, about the killing of innocent women and children in air attacks -- and now America gives us another gift with its street protests to prevent a mosque from being built in New York," Zabihullah says. "Showing reality always makes the best propaganda."

kevin: "Similarly, if something being done is bad, it should be stopped because it is morally wrong, or a bad idea, or ineffective, not because it makes Al Qaeda angry."

While I generally agree with you on this, I think it's wise to be mindful that we have troops in harm's way in two Islamic countries. And Muslim troops, at that. I'd hate to think that escalated hyped up rhetoric, and now these incidents, would cause any deeper stress to them than they already are dealing with. They are my first concern.

Having said that, these incidents are no less terrorism than burning black churces was, that bombing abortion clinics are, that killing medical practioners is. (Not that I think, you, Kevin, are saying otherwise.)

@nisleib: "By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor," Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. "It's providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support."

And what's that buzzing you hear in the background? It's a sort of droning, isn't it? Uh oh.

Good for Zabihullah. Perhaps we should base everything we do on what Taliban operatives think about us, or what they claim gets them more or less recruits.

The fact is, the only thing that could possible tempt me to support the anti-Park 51 crowd is that Taliban terrorist-types are saying it makes would-be terrorists angry. Oh, really?

Obama said that he did "NOT walk - back his initial comments on the mosque"

Well - the country was outraged before Obama's walk-back - so then Obama made some comments on a tarmac somewhere.

First, it is a LIE to say that Obama didn't walk-back his position.

Second - this is just like the terrorism issues with Obama - the American people find out Obama is doing something they do not like - there is a public outcry - and Obama makes some statement changing his position.

AND then the country finds out sometime later that Obama NEVER changed his position, and Obama is going forward with his original position which caused OUTRAGE.

So Obama has LIED to the country on several accounts.

In addition - this is another part of Obama's personality disorder - Obama is NOT representing the American People in office, and what the American People want.

Obama is off the reservation - doing far-left things - which no one wants - and lying about it.

The wanted President Bush for a second term, and they wanted the invasion of Iraq. After they got both, then they didn't want them, after all. So, tell us what they really want, and will not turn against, in another year or so.

No one would respect the rights of ethnic Japanese to build a Japanese cultural center or anything near Pearl Harbor during WW II.

Come on - let's be serious here.

The war is still going on - what is NOT appropriate today MAY be appropriate 10 or 20 years from now.

NO one in the United States brought Islam into the terrorist attacks: OSAMA BIN LADEN DID.

The idea that it is wrong to bring up the STATED OBJECTIVES OF THE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS - AND THE INFLUENCE OF ISLAM on those terrorists - is insanity.

There IS a war going on - and those people we are fighting ARE seeking to gain leadership positions and greater prominence in the Islamic world - based on their version of Islam.

It is correct and fair to say that muslims do not draw the distinction between "radical" muslims and "moderate" muslims - like the media likes to. Muslims are FAR more concerned with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

The public debate on the mosque should center on the CASELAW - whether there is a COMPELLING INTEREST to not having the mosque in that location.

The answer is YES there is a "compelling interest."

There is a danger that some in the muslim world will interprete this mosque as a "Victory Mosque" - that is a propaganda victory and it is a "compelling" reason to stop the project.

The other reason is that the location could be used as a RECRUITING tool - specifically there, AND over the internet. That is a "compelling Interest" to stop the project.

Just because the vast majority of people at a mosque who are not involved in terrorism, if there are a small group planning terrorist attacks, that is a serious NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN. The presence of that vast majority does not diminish the NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN.

Again, it is the Islamic terrorists who are ABUSING the mosque - almost like "human shields" in war. This is improper - and the combatents have an obligation NOT to ENDANGER innocent civilians by placing their military operations and planning near civilians - It is the terrorists who have violated this principle.

The FACT that the terrorists use mosques for RECRUITING AND PLANNING - make those mosques a NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN.

Again- it is the actions of the other side which create this situation - so there is an "COMPELLING INTEREST" TO STOP the mosque project.

@suekzoo1: " I'd hate to think that escalated hyped up rhetoric, and now these incidents, would cause any deeper stress to them than they already are dealing with. They are my first concern."

Indeed, our friends engaging in anti-Muslim rhetoric should be equally concerned with the safety of our troops.

But the anti-Muslim stuff going on (and the attempt to conflate Islam with Al Qaeda by the Park 51 opponents, and their silence on the anti-Islamic tone and vandalism elsewhere in the country) is bad in and of itself.

While I would still be concerned about our troops, if they (Taliban) were saying that women having the right to vote was making them angry (I realize, that's not apples to apples at all, but that's sort of the point) and helping them recruit terrorists, it wouldn't make me think we needed to change anything about how we vote in this country.

I just don't like that argument. In argues that something we wouldn't let change our minds on most issues should give us pause in this case, and that what is right, just, and constitutional should take a back seat to what foreign bullies are saying to us about how we conduct ourselves. The anti-Islam stuff is bad in and of itself.

@Liam-still: "Kevin, I think it is the exact opposite, I think the protests against the site, must be very pleasing to Bin Laden."

How is that the opposite of anything I've said?

I've said we shouldn't let Bin Laden's opinion--pro or con--make our decisions for us. Or inform our behavior. Either something is wrong, or right, or somewhere in the middle, irrespective of Osama Bin Laden's imprimatur.

"Just because the vast majority of people at a mosque who are not involved in terrorism, if there are a small group planning terrorist attacks, that is a serious NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN. The presence of that vast majority does not diminish the NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN."

I'm guessing that's why after the Eric Rudolph bombings you supported intense scrutiny of every Christian church in the nation? You were against any new churches being built anywhere near these hallowed sites?

What about after the murder of Dr. George Tiller?

I mean, we just can't run the risk that some crazy Christian is using his church to plan some sort of terrorist attack.

Kevin - I get what you are saying. I guess it comes down to where you stand on "The War on Terror."

I'm of the opinion that you can't wage war on a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic, after all. And since terrorism is a tactic favored by those that have little to no resources and limited organization you can't win a "War on Terror" by bombing; the targets are too decentralized for that to work. There just aren't enough of what Rumsfeld called "hard targets." Remember, one of the reasons the neo-cons didn't like Afghanistan and wanted to invade Iraq is that Afghanistan didn't have enough "hard targets." (This is another way of saying you can't bomb a country back to the Stone Age if that country is already IN the Stone Age.)

So if bombs and bullets can't win you a "War on Terror" what can?

Given that any knucklehead can commit an act of terror, your only way to win a "War on Terror" is to get people to stop wanting to commit acts of terrorism. How? By winning their "hearts and minds."

The recent spat of anti Muslim xenophobia does NOT help win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims. Nor, imo, did the Iraq war. Of these two the Iraq war, I'd guess, was a much bigger loss in the "War on Terror" than today's rabid xenophobia, but it is in the past. We can't do anything about it.

We can, however, do and say something about the Mosque issue, which is happening right now and is wholly uncalled for.

Consider the source though; I've never thought the "War on Terror" was smart. I think we would have a better chance of winning the "War on Drugs" (impossible) or the "War on Obesity."

I was agreeing with your point, that we can not worry about the Taliban getting upset, and in fact, I think they and Bin Laden would be the last ones to get upset about the Mosque protests, since it allows them to say to all Muslims, see, the Americans hate you, so you should join us.

wow, hateful fools are energized, better go knock on some more doors, we have Obama Democrats to elect, and money to raise. End of quarter tomorrow midnight. Let's beat them where it really hurts, the ballots. Come on.

I find it amusing that all you Rabid Right Wingers are trying to compare the MLK attendance figures to those that Beck drew on Saturday.

For starters; the vast majority of those who attended the MLK rally, were drawn from the African American Community, a small minority segment of the population, at that time. Beck had a much larger pool of White people to draw from. Probably, at least ten times as large a pool. Furthermore, the African American community of 1963 was mostly impoverished, and could not afford to make the trip to DC or pay for accommodations.

Cut out the nonsense. The African American population of the Southern states were still being segregated, and having dogs and water cannons turned on them, if they even tried to get a meal at a Woolworths lunch counter.

They were striving for to finally be treated as full human beings.

Their cause was just and great, while Beck and Palin were just two Fox Cable performers, organizing a giant publicity stunt.

If one wished to be facetious
What is labeled here as "terrorism",
In the circumstances, might be thought of
As reflecting "anti-terrorism".

Of course,it's inappropriate generally
To take life and/or destroy property
Whether in the heart of New York City
Or down in Murfreesboro, Ten.nes.see.

So those who're found guilty of either
Should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law;
But to equate what could be perceived as "anti-terrorist" acts with "terrorism"
as we've come to know it.
Would be a dysfunctional conceptual flaw.

rainforest....Just so you know since you seem to be new to this blog...it's not like redstate or drudge where you simply shoot your mouth off...we actually like thoughtful opinion that is reality based.

When you post..Obama is "doing far-left things" you reveal yourself to be an uneducated person who doesn't have a clue as to what constitutes left and right in America. Of course when you're to the right of Attila the Hun..or Mussolini...then even Ronald Reagan looks like a leftist socialist!

Really please use your brain before wasting space....if you think Obama is doing FAR LEFT things please elucidate exactly what you are talking about.

To borrow a word that would have been in vogue at Saturday's big prayer meeting...errrr...rally....AMEN to your thoughts.

@SueK...thanks for your efforts on Saturday.
Way to guilt trip me. I just got my OFA email today asking for $195 to set up offices and gear up the ground game for the GOTV in November. I thought..$195 in these tight times...but it's folks like you Sue that motivate me to give to the cause, and so perhaps I'll have to reconsider.

Gonzage1: "But to equate what could be perceived as "anti-terrorist" acts with "terrorism" as we've come to know it.
Would be a dysfunctional conceptual flaw."

There is no need to make a pretzel out of this. As it turns out, terrorism has an exact definition.

From dictionary.com:

"1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

"Perceptions" aside, the incidents taking place to frighten and/or intimidate people into not building mosques fits definition #1 to a T.

In response to your question, Adam, the answer is, of course, NEVER. The Park51 opponents will never denounce these violent acts.

And it's not just because they are not people of good faith and conscience.

It's because this trumped-up attack on Muslims and their places of worship in this country is a carefully planned and carefully timed political strategy. Dick Armey and his FreedomWorks gang are busy little bees.

Since the GOP has nothing to run on in the midterms but keeping huge tax benefits for the rich, they have to come up with something to distract their base. And they know that the fundamentalist Christians have been their reliable voting bloc in the past...and perhaps the only solid one they have left.

So all this relentless questioning about President Obama's religion and place of birth has been designed to try to link him to Islam. Even little Franklin Graham got into the act with his "seed of Muslim" garbage.

And now, after 9 years of peaceful Muslim worship in this country after 9/11, suddenly, right before the elections, we have this fervor of Islamophobia created by Fox News.

Add in a dash of "restore God to America" Beck/Palin speak in a highly publicized rally in DC on a day carefully chosen for its historical significance and ability to inflame media attention, and...

....voila, you have the GOP recipe for getting their base riled up enough to vote in November.

Never mind that they will be voting against their own best interests economically. Never mind they are being used as tools to line the pockets of the wealthy, including Mr. Beck and Ms. Palin. Never mind that they are turning against every principle of the religion they claim to espouse. Never mind that religious intolerance is un-American and anti-Christian.

They are just pawns in a carefully timed political strategy. We'll see if it works. Heaven help us all if it does. Because if this is the way the GOP gains back the Congress, it's only the beginning of an unrelenting season of hate and fear and division which isn't good for anyone in the country.

When will Bloomberg publicly apologize to the secular Muslim NY Cabbie and his family for inciting the pro-jihad mosque vigilantee to moby violence?

It's past time to take a little ownership for Bloomberg's orchestrated Islamo-supremacist advocacy campaign.

What gets lost in all Bloomberg's recent demogoguery is that the Muslim cabbie victim is himself a hateful hater, bigot, inauthentic, xenophobic, neanderthal-- at least, if you go by the criterion set out by Bloomberg (and his Quisling toadies in the media): Opposing the mosque is "Islamophobia"-- period. Right?

As an anti-jihadist, however, I’m inclined to observe that the Muslim cabbie’s pretty much consonant in his opinion of the Cordoba mosque with a super majority (70%) of his fellow Americans.

That Bloomberg's proteges will be disappointed to discover the opinion of this Muslim cabbie apostate tells you all you need to know about the two "sides" of this debate.

Responsible for Equality And Liberty, United for Pluralism, and Muslims for Progressive Values will be standing up for freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience in Washington DC's Freedom Plaza at 2 PM on September 11.

It is Imam Rauf-- and not the bipartisan super-majority (70%) of Americans from all walks of life who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque-- who must apologize for fueling anti-American Islamic terrorism.

As more information about Rauf becomes available, it is clear that he has spread the same kind of propaganda that al Qaeda uses to recruit new terrorists and is out of touch with reality when he joked about suicide bombers in front of a foreign audience.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jordan_Sekulow/2010/08/imam_rauf_should_apologize.html

The altogether too late concern for the troops is heart warming. I'd love to see links to condemnations of the words of Harry Reid (the war is lost) and others who repeatedly voice disdain and defeatism.

Oh, even our guy Mr Obama was wrong about the surge. Where are the concerns about how his words might make the lives of those we put in danger more difficult?
So spare me the clearly false concern for the troops. If you view of them changed with the administration, then no one needs your "support".

I think the essay by Judea Pearl, Danny Pearl's father, gets to part of the anger that Americans are feeling.

Much of the debate revolves around the "priority" we assign to various threats. To many (and most liberals here) Islam is not a threat. But others, who believe themselves to be rational, simply don't agree.

Mr Pearl said this:

"A more realistic explanation is that most Americans do not buy the 19-fanatics story, but view the 9/11 assault as a product of an anti-American ideology that, for good and bad reasons, has found a fertile breeding ground in the hearts and minds of many Muslim youngsters who see their Muslim identity inextricably tied with anti-Americanism.

The Ground Zero Mosque is being equated with that ideology, not with the faith or religious practices it aims to house. Public objection to the mosque thus represents a vote of no confidence in mainstream American Muslim leadership which, on the one hand, refuses to acknowledge the alarming dimension that anti-Americanism has taken in their community and, paradoxically, blames America for creating it."

There is little trust now between many Americans and their muslim neighbors. This isn't because Americans suddenly turned into bigots, it is because the track record of Islam in America is not good. Not only are their organizations suspect, the terror incidents perpetrated by American muslims cast a pall on the entire muslim community. these things are done in the name of their faith. It is their problem. They should stop blaming us and start rooting out the bad actors among them.

"All Tennesseans are reminded that Saturday, Aug. 28 is Free Hunting Day in Tennessee when state residents may hunt without a license. The annual event coincides with the opening day of squirrel season."
=====

[Adam Sewer sneered: "Last week, a Muslim cabbie in New York was stabbed by a passenger who asked if he was Muslim."]

Stabbed by whom? ...by a PRO-mosque Leftist provocateur.

Why the silence? Either pro-mosque demagogues don't care about this anti-jihadist backlash, or they don't want to be seen defending Americans in any context. Of course, the only way to sustain advocacy for Cordoba House jihadists is by (on some level) insinuating Imam Rauf (somehow) represents all Muslims, which is also the only rationale that supports advocating the construction of mosques at Ground Zero. Arguing that this Quisling advocacy for Imam Rauf has nothing to do with Michael Enright's slashing becomes harder once the media campaign to demonize anti-jihadists is taken into account.

It is blasphemy to have commercial enterprises open offices on holy ground. A CITY OF GOD should be built on the old WTC site and occupied with a thousand houses of worship. The Vatican and the Black Stone of Mecca can even be relocated to the holiest of places. Millions of pilgrims from all over the world would come to pray at the new Jerusalem.

I’d also like to point out how bigotted, ignorant and intolerant it is of Bloomberg to endorse the spiritual commitment of Cordoba House fanatics who endorse “Vilayet-i-faquih” (mullahocracy).
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770

By what authority does Bloomberg excommunicate (takfir) devout Secular Muslims when they oppose “Vilayet-i-faquih” and the multitude of oppressive sharia fatwas, endorsed by the Corboba House sharia law advocates?

Again, the prerogative to issue apostacy fatwas is granted only to Islam’s prophet, or authoritative representatives of the Ummah— which is Bloomberg endorsing?

Does Bloomberg know whether Cordoba House’s handlers in the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood approved of any anti-sharia fatwas?

Don’t take my word for it: Here is Rauf's editorial endorsing "Vilayet-i-faquih" (the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe mullahocracy).
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770

"Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.

Special Agent Andy Anderson of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CBS News that the fire destroyed one piece of construction equipment and damaged three others. Gas was poured over the equipment to start the fire, Anderson said.

. . .

WTVF reports firefighters were alerted by a passerby who saw flames at the site. One large earth hauler was set on fire before the suspect or suspects left the scene."

[nisleib sputtered: "I also just ignore K Troll. He has never had an original thought"]

*pffl* How exactly are you ignoring KDF when you actively research (stalk) the originality of the thoughts?

As to the "original" thought conceit, anyone can read the chicken scratchings here and recognize sychophantic toadying behavior for what it is... unoriginal.

The other day you were all comically whining that Greg doesn't even join your boring discussions anymore. There's only so much sucking up he can take before he abandons you altogether. Thus the guest host.

Truth: You've all been (repeatedly) intellectually outmatched because your "arguments" (as such) are sloppy, bereft of any cited evidence to support them, common, ordinary and (frankly) boring.

I accept the lack of any rejoinder as admission of intellectual bankruptcy.

[Liam drooled: "Kadaffi is clearly an agent of Al-Qaeda. That can be the only reason why he keeps working so hard to try and start a Holy War."]

In fact, Qaedists issued a death sentence fatwa on the apostate cross-dresser Kaddafi-- who (naturally) reciprocated by buying a fabulous new wardrobe.

Kaddafi's jihad (holy war) on Eurabia differs tactically from Qaedists in its shift from bombings to demographic conquest-- but differs little in its Islamo-supremacist aspirations.

And both differ altogether with the stealth jihad tactics of the Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists.

Those interested in a more scholarly discussion of the subject may read, "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs" @
http://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569

When will Bloomberg (and his Quisling toadies in the media) publicly apologize to the secular Muslim NY Cabbie and his family for inciting the pro-jihad mosque vigilantee (Michael Enright) to moby violence?

It's now past time to take a little ownership for Bloomberg's orchestrated Islamo-supremacist advocacy campaign.

What gets lost in all Bloomberg's recent demogoguery is that the Muslim cabbie victim is himself a hateful hater, bigot, inauthentic, xenophobic, neanderthal-- at least, if you go by the criterion set out by Bloomberg (and his Quisling toadies in the media): Opposing the mosque is "Islamophobia"-- period. Right?

As an anti-jihadist, however, I’m inclined to observe that the Muslim cabbie’s pretty much consonant in his opinion of the Cordoba mosque with a super majority (70%) of his fellow Americans.

That Bloomberg's proteges (in the media and elsewhere) will be disappointed to discover the opinion of this Muslim cabbie apostate tells you all you need to know about the two "sides" of this debate.

Greg Sargent writes: "Of course, the only way to sustain opposition to the Park51 project is by, on some level, holding all Muslims responsible for the acts of al-Qaeda, which is also the only rationale that supports opposing the construction of mosques anywhere in the United States."

There's the rub pal. Islam has NOT excommunicated the 19, bin Laden or al qaeda. They say they are in heaven because they ARE muslims who work for allah. Individual muslims have fully denounced but not the religion per se. They are not allowed. So shame on them. Bush was wrong, Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is what Islam does.

Will supporters of the mosque condemn Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations for the systematic repression of all non-Muslim faiths.

Let's face it to openly criticism Saudi Arabia even though it allows no churches et no Bibles would be Islamophic. [See Maldives ~ right under your understanding nose they have instituted the very same laws ~ no churches and no Bibles and no non-Muslims citizens!! All have been outlawed.]

And here's the problem ~ many Muslims 'moderate' and otherwise see the religious subjugation of non-Muslims as ideal.

Forget what Muslims say ~ just read the Koran ~ Sura 9:29. Muslims naturally want to put their best religious foot forward in the west ~ but in the Islamic world these are the rules they follow and more troubling the one's which they envision for the world.

I mean if you are prepared to live as a 2nd class citizen under Islamic rule then fine ~ but expect other people to object to the idea no matter how nice the Muslims are presenting these ideas.

Let's go build a church in Egypt ~ shall we?

* First see building a church like building a barn for cats, pigs and dogs fatwa ~ legally recognized. Al-Azhar issue!

* And then lets go talk to the President as only he can approve church building.

* And try to make major church repairs ~ that could take 8 years or more to get permission. and hope and pray the villagers don't come out and attack once approval is granted.

Good luck!!

Let's hear some objections to these sorts of things ~ Rauf is Egyptian. And he is a proponent for Shari'a law.

I advocate full freedom for all religions down to the smallest beliefs and faiths. People should be able to use it for their spiritual advancement and relationship with God. Regardless of what people lacking knowledge and experience with Islam may say, it doesn't pass the religion test. It is more interested in how to deal with and eliminate non-muslims than using it for one's own good.

"Will supporters of the mosque condemn Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations for the systematic repression of all non-Muslim faiths."

Speaking for myself, I urge Saudi and Egypt and other countries that don't practice freedom of religion to start doing it. But this seems like a bit of a red herring, IMHO. America is supposed to be the Land of the Free; different, better, Why would we be interested in quid pro quo with older, more traditional countries? To quote the "Ground Zero Imam" in today's Wall Street Journal: ”Growing up in Egypt or Malaysia — in societies where most people are Muslims — you practice your faith because its the social norm. But when I went to America, I didn’t have to practice my faith — it was more of a choice. This is part of why I’m happy to be American.”

I feel some important issues have been grossly neglected in this uproar.

First, Imam Rauf has been reported to have been giving extremism-oriented speeches and his finances are not in order (please see the website of Investigative Project on Terrorism).

Besides, he has ignored the fact that the 3 Abrahamic religions are not the only ones existing in the US. There are non-Abrahamic religions as well as many shades of non-religious ideologies in the US.

A proposal to build inter-community dialogue is most welcome and protecting the rights of the minority groups in a democracy is fine. But the responsibility for inter-community dialogue should not be given to an extremist person. Nor should the rights of the minorities be determined by the extremist sections in that group, when a large number of democratic Muslims have clearly opposed Park51.

This article should have featured the protests the democratic Muslims have made against Park51.

The US Govt is not doing a favour to the Muslim population of the US by giving right of passage to the extremist voices amongst them. It will do well to protect the right of the democratic Muslims who don't want Park51 and should not allow the project to go on.

Treating this as the personal religious freedom of a private individual on his personal property is also grossly wrong.

Imam Rauf never said he was building a private residence or a place for his private religious activity. He said he wanted a community centre for engaging the community. And the community - the democratic Muslims and the non-Muslims - doesn't want it. In this event, his project should not be allowed to go on.

Those who support the project in the name of religious freedom of the minorities have actually attempted to suppress the voices of the democratic Muslims. They don't realise that the Muslim community is not homogeneous. There are different shades of Muslims around.

It only shows their own ignorance of Muslim society.

Instead of indulging in populist politics and supporting an extremist Imam, they should support the democratic Muslims who are against Park51, if they truly cherish the American democratic values.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.